| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, mikael(dot)kjellstrom(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~? |
| Date: | 2024-04-05 17:03:28 |
| Message-ID: | C5BD6F11-B6A8-4B0D-B55E-203C117831EA@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 5 Apr 2024, at 18:41, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:37 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> I would be OK to draw a line to what we test in the buildfarm if it
>> comes to that, down to OpenBSD 6.9.
>
> That would correspond to LibreSSL 3.3 if I'm not mistaken. Any
> particular reason for 6.9 as the dividing line, and not something
> later? And by "test in the buildfarm", do you mean across all
> versions, or just what we support for PG17? (For the record, I don't
> think there's any reason to drop older LibreSSL testing for earlier
> branches.)
We should draw the line on something we can reliably test, so 6.9 seems fine to
me (unless there is evidence of older versions being common in the wild).
OpenBSD themselves support 2 backbranches so 6.9 is still far beyond the EOL
mark upstream.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2024-04-05 17:26:49 | Re: AIX support |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-04-05 16:59:54 | Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~? |